PEOPLE

v. DELA CRUZ
July 11, 2002 | Davide, Jr., J. | AKGL | Impeachment of Witness; Exclusion of Witness

CASE SUMMARY: Bienvenido was charged with 2 informations of rape. He pleaded not guilty. During the
trial, the prosecution presented the victim Jonalyn, who was suffering from mental retardation and had the
mental age of 8 y/o. The defense assailed Jonalyn’s competency as a witness, alleging that her testimony was
coached and rehearsed.
DOCTRINE: Even a mental retardate is not, per se, disqualified from being a witness. JONALYN, who may be
considered as a mental retardate but with the ability to make her perceptions known to others, is a
competent witness under Section 20 of Rule 130.
NATURE: APPEAL from the decision of the RTC Malolos, Bulacan
FACTS:
• Upon a complaint signed by JONALYN Yumang with the assistance of her aunt Carmelita Borja, two
informations were filed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor before RTC Malolos, charging
Bienvenido Dela Cruz with rape allegedly committed on July 3 and 4.
• Upon arraignment, BIENVENIDO entered a plea of not guilty.
• When JONALYN was presented as its first witness, the prosecution sought to obtain from the trial
court an order for the conduct of a psychiatric examination on her person. The purpose was that
should her mental capacity be found to be below normal, the prosecution could propound leading
questions to JONALYN.
o The trial court allowed the prosecutor to conduct direct examination on JONALYN so that if
in its perception she would appear to be suffering from mental deficiency, the prosecutor
could be permitted to ask leading questions.
• During trial, JONALYN was then made to identify her signature in her sworn statement and to
identify the accused, and was asked about her personal circumstances.
o She also identified BIENVENIDO as the person against whom she filed a complaint for rape.
She declared in open court that BIENVENIDO raped her twice inside the house of a certain
Mhel. She stated that BIENVENIDO placed himself on top of her and inserted his private part
into her womanhood.
• Dr. Cecilia Tuazon of the National Center for Mental Health found that JONALYN was suffering from a
moderate level of mental retardation and that although chronologically the latter was already 20 y/o
(at the time of the examination), she had the mental age of an 8 ½ y/o child. She, however, observed
that she had to “prompt” JONALYN most of the time to elicit information on the sexual harassment
incident.
• Dr. Edgardo Gueco of PNP Crime Lab found that she was in “a non-virgin state physically,” as her
hymen bore deep fresh and healing lacerations. the hymenal lacerations were sustained a week
before the examination and, therefore, compatible with the time the rapes were allegedly committed.
• The defense filed a Demurrer to Evidence with leave of court.
o JONALYN had no capacity to sign the same considering her mental deficiency or abnormality.
The assistance extended to JONALYN by her aunt Carmelita Borja did not cure the defect.
o The defense also insisted on assailing the competency of JONALYN as a witness. It claimed
that JONALYN’s testimony, considering her mental state, was coached and rehearsed. Worse,
she was not only asked leading questions but was fed legal and factual conclusions.
• The trial court denied the Demurrer to Evidence. Instead of presenting evidence, the defense filed a
Motion for Judgment.

[RTC] Convicted BIENVENIDO of the crime of rape in one criminal case and acquitted in the other.
• While conceding that JONALYN’s narration of how she was sexually abused by BIENVENIDO was not
“detailed,” the court, nonetheless, concluded that it was candidly related by one who had the mental
age of an 8 y/o child.

Arguments before SC
[Defense] BIENVENIDO also stresses the incompetency of JONALYN as a trial witness for the reason that the
prosecution failed to prove her competency. Further, JONALYN was merely asked to affirm the legal and

factual conclusions of the prosecution which evinced quite clearly the girl’s lack of comprehension of the
court proceedings and the nature of her oath.
[OSG] JONALYN’s mental retardation does not render her incompetent for initiating the prosecution of the
crime committed against her and for testifying in court.

ISSUE: W/N JONALYN was incompetent to give her testimony given her moderate level of mental
retardation? YES!

RULING:
1. Competence of JONALYN to Testify
• The determination of the competence of witnesses to testify rests primarily with the trial judge.
• The prosecution has proved JONALYN’s competency by the testimony of Dr. Tuazon. The finding of
the trial court that JONALYN had the understanding of an 8 y/o child, does not obviate the fact of her
competency. Its only effect was to consider her testimony from the point of view of an 8 y/o minor.
• Even a mental retardate is not, per se, disqualified from being a witness. JONALYN, who may be
considered as a mental retardate but with the ability to make her perceptions known to others, is a
competent witness under Section 20 of Rule 130.

2. Credibility of J ONALYN as a Witness
• The narrative has established not only JONALYN's competency but also her credibility. Moreover,
considering her feeble mind, she could not have fabricated or concocted her charge against
BIENVENIDO.
• This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that no improper motive was shown by the defense as to
why JONALYN would file a case or falsely testify against BIENVENIDO.
• No woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination
of her private parts, and thereafter permit herself to be subjected to a public trial if she is not
motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.

3. Propriety of Propounding Leading Questions to JONALYN
• We likewise agree with the trial court’s conclusion that JONALYN’s testimony should be taken and
understood from the point of view of an 8 y/o child. JONALYN’s testimony is consistent with the
straightforward and innocent testimony of a child.
• The prosecution’s persistent, repetitious and painstaking effort in asking leading questions was
necessary and indispensable in the interest of justice to draw out from JONALYN’s lips the basic
details of the grave crime committed against her.
• It is usual and proper for the court to permit leading questions in conducting the examination of a
witness who is immature; aged and infirm; in bad physical condition; uneducated; ignorant of, or
unaccustomed to, court proceedings; inexperienced; unsophisticated; feeble-minded; of sluggish
mental equipment; confused and agitated; terrified; timid or embarrassed while on the stand; lacking
in comprehension of questions asked or slow to understand; deaf and dumb; or unable to speak or
understand the English language or only imperfectly familiar therewith.
• The leading questions were neither conclusions of facts merely put into the mouth of JONALYN nor
prepared statements which she merely confirmed as true. The questions were indeed carefully
phrased and sometimes based on her Sinumpaang Salaysay to make JONALYN understand the import
of the questions.
o The purpose of refreshing the recollection of a witness is to enable both the witness and her
present testimony to be put fairly and in their proper light before the court.
• JONALYN’s constant eyeball fixature towards her aunt and mother does not by itself indicate
coaching, in the face of a dearth of other evidentiary bases that the latter did coach her.

DISPOSITION: Judgment affirmed.